Ah-56 lives and AX never takes off, what happens to the A-7?

[isayyo2]

For the past month or so I've been reading into the AH-56 and AX fly off here on our forum as well as DTIC thesis' like so: THE WARTHOG: THE BEST DEAL THE AIR FORCE NEVER WANTED
The conclusion which shouldn't surprise many "There is a fair amount of evidence to indicate that the USAF did not plan to use the A-10 for any other purpose than to kill the Army’s Cheyenne program--to keep the Army out of the CAS mission." With that said, does an inservice Cheyenne by 1970 totally kill off the AX program? If so, then the A-7 becomes the USAF sole dedicated CAS/BAI program coming out of Vietnam. Could the Air Force accept advanced variants like the A-7DER or even the A-7X before 1980, or would they shift even more funding into the F-16 program? Can a forced A-7X kill the NACF F/A-18 for the Navy and Marines?

In my ideal, naive world, the TF41 Spey gets tapped as a full TF30 replacement for the A-7, F-111, and F-14 programs. A 17,000/25-30,000lb advanced TF41 variation seems to be more than possible by the mid 70s as mentioned in norseman's post: 25K Spey project. Perhaps then Congress can force an A-7X "Corsair III" on both services to kill off the F/A-18 and supplement the F-16, as well as making up for the 700 plane gap without the A-10s. A notional Corsair III would be stretched back into the 50-54ft range to accommodate the new engine, more fuel, and ideally the GAU-8 itself in some form; the all weather radar would be further enhanced by an internal FLIR, EO camera, and laser designator. Coming into the service by the early 80s, it would for stick around 30 years or so until being replaced by a JSF analogue.

Would love to hear everyones thoughts!

 

[Archibald]

One thing is sure. Either with a reheated TF41 in the 70's or with a F100 in the 80's, a second generation, supersonic A-7 would have been a terrific strike platform. It had everything going for it: range, speed, bomb load, avionics... it could give Hornet or F-16 or F-20 a run for their money. Shame Vought never got a true chance.

 

[Foo Fighter]

That scenario has it all imho, no wonder it was canned/sidelined.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

LTV built an advanced version of the USAF's A-7D, the YA-7F, seeing to it that the A-10 was a subsonic plane that might be vulnerable to anti-aircraft gunfire and that the YA-7F could be fast enough to escape enemy gunfire when attacking tanks and other armored fighting vehicles.

The AH-56 production contract was cancelled because one of the Cheyenne prototypes crashed during testing due to the half-P hop vibration issue, and the aircraft gross weight exceeding program requirements. Had those problems not popped up, the AH-56 would have entered production and the AH-64 would never have existed.

 

[Archibald]

Your scenario needs the Army resisting the Air Force shenigans more strongly. A different issue to the "fixed wing aircraft " debate. They capitulated.
The Cheyenne by 1972 worked superbly alas in the words of Lockheed Jack Real "they were like kids in a candy shop".
Surely enough a combination of A-7F and Cheyenne would be awesome. As you note it screws the Hornet on the Navy side. Maybe Vietnam going worse mandates a supersonic A-7 as the F-105 successor. And the Navy follows, and there die the Hornet down the road: back to some kind of Crusader derived from that naval A-7F... and the Tomcat getting the TF41 sounds like an evidence. An alternate F-14B !

 

[Archibald]

I got a POD ! OTL the USN A-7B had the TF30. Yet the Air Force A-7D followed by the USN -E switched to TF41. And overall performance got a major boost. That the USN followed the Air Force idea speaks volume !!
Now, whatif the doomed F-111B had done the same with an afterburning TF41 circa 1966 ?
Second whatif: they ask Vought to turn an A-7E into an engine testbed of the afterburning TF41 - called the YA-7F, the irony !! And of course it breaks the bank with astonishing performance...
And the Hornet is instantly strangled even before the craddle. YF-17 still lose to F-16 but dies right there. The alt-F-14B Tomcat with TF41 rules the skies while the Navy A-7F close the strike / LWF gap: OTL Hornet niche entry in the USN. So no VFAX.
- A disgusted Northrop throws the F-17 under a bus and goes F-20 earlier with a J101 rather than F404.
- A-10 still happens but might end squeezed between alt A-7F and the coming F-16.
- USMC still goes Harrier AV-8 A.
- Zumwalt SCS and VSS small carriers still needs either XVF-12, Convair 200 or AV-16. The first is still doomed. The second had a 201 variant with no lift jets that OTL went to VFAX... but "naval LWF / YF-17" requirement killed it and the Hornet sprung from there. This won't happen here. So can the Convair 201 fit into the Hornet shoes ITTL ? If the related -200 screws the XVF-12 we are in potential F-35 territory there.
Problem: GD Convair is already building the F-16 !! A Convair 201 duplicates it... ! So maybe AV-16 carries the day instead and goes OTL AV-8B 5 years earlier.

 

[Archibald]

More on this...
Will the USN makes VFAX ? with a much healthier Tomcat and a beefed up A7 - a naval A-7F ?
I doubt it.
Now if they do it nonetheless, the competitors might be
- non-VSTOL variants of Zumwalt XVF-12, Convair 200 or AV-16.
- fighter A-7F : a reborn Crusader !
- navalized LWF : the Hornet ghost keeps haunting that TL... !
What a hodgepodge, really. A reborn Crusader seems the logical choice here...

 

[isayyo2]

I doubt 70s VFAX would ever come around if the F-14B was healthy with USN, USMC, Iran, and hopefully other orders. If that’s the case, how long do the Midways and their Phantoms last? Sooo F/A-7G Crusader IVs could be on the table, very similar to V-1100 with a bubble canopy?

More on this...
Will the USN makes VFAX ? with a much healthier Tomcat and a beefed up A7 - a naval A-7F ?
I doubt it.
Now if they do it nonetheless, the competitors might be
- non-VSTOL variants of Zumwalt XVF-12, Convair 200 or AV-16.
- fighter A-7F : a reborn Crusader !
- navalized LWF : the Hornet ghost keeps haunting that TL... !
What a hodgepodge, really. A reborn Crusader seems the logical choice here...

 

[Archibald]

Yees ! Absolutely. Except it needs some good name.

More on this TL. First, a refined POD. I checked the A-7A/B/C transition to TF41. Happened between 1965 and 1968, USAF A-7D first, quickly followed by the USN screwing its last A-7B into A-7E with the new engine. They all flew in 1968-69. Fine.

The USN then badly wants afterburning TF41 for either F-111B or the coming Tomcat (which started as early as 1966). Problem: McNamara and the Air Force whine "F-111 is already in trouble, we can't change the TF30 now".

The USN, baffled, decides to screw them. Instead of modifying a F-111B with TF41 as a supersonic testbed, they ask Vought to modify an A-7E.
It quietly flies circa 1968. So the YA-7F is born, a demonstrator... and it breaks the bank. And there, here we go again, A-7D / A-7E, but in reverse. The USN A-7F impress the Air Force so much, they request a land-based variant: logically called the A-7G (the irony). Vought is extremely happy, you guess. And they immediately plans their next move.

Since the last Crusaders rolled out in 1965 (the French Navy batch of 42) they immediately think about an A-7F fighter variant - a reborn Crusader !

In the meantime, they need better names for these two. The new, supersonic A-7 was once called A-7F and A-7G "Corsair III". But Vought after some lobying gets the A-8 slot. Which mirrors the Crusader F-8, so perfect.

Hence... A-8A and A-8B Corsair III.

But how about the fighter variant ? F-8 won't move, but Crusader IV ? sounds boring.

Vought test pilot John Konrad tells what happened next...

Vought lost no time putting dummy air-to-air-missiles on a Corsair III. And then come Admiral Stansfield Turner who saw our aircraft.

"Are those missiles Sparrows ?"
"Yes, Admiral Turner."
"So tell me, you are looking for a fighter variant, correct ?"
"You guessed well"
"And do you even have a decent name for it ?"
"Only Corsair III. Or Crusader IV."
"Sounds bad. You will need to find a better name."
"We will, Turner."
"Well, let me help you. How about Pirate ? That was the name of Vought first jet, the F6U"
"Brilliant ! Let's go for a Pirate with Sparrows"
"And Sidewinders, obviously."
"As you will, Turner. Pardon, Admiral"
"No problem. You did so much for the Navy, John. Let's have some rum to celebrate this."
"Common admiral, you know we can't. "
"Ah yes, damn it. Why is the rum gone, from our ships ?"

 

[Archibald]

Cuttlefishes !

 

[isayyo2]

Alright lemme get the timeline straight F-8J > A-7A/B > A-7D/E > supersonic A-7F/E > A-8 which is mostly a multi-role A-7F with a bubble cockpit and some other gizmos? Sounds good to me!

 

[Archibald]

You nailed it. And you gonna like what happens next.

A-X gets axed by the Air Force. Because OTL, A-10 and A-7 crossed paths multiple times: in 1967, in 1974, and in 1986 with A-7F.

Now, with A-7F right from the beginning ITTL, A-10 never happens. In turns, by 1972, the Army decides to go for a mix of AH-1 and AH-56, so no Apache.
OTL Apache / A-10 duo for antitank & CAS becomes Cobra / Cheyenne / A-7D & A-7F mixed fleet.

If that’s the case, how long do the Midways and their Phantoms last?

Roosevelt was in a very poor shape by the late 70's so it will still get the axe. Now, we all know how badly unbalanced USS Midway ended: aggravated by Hornet modifications in the early 90's. Now, with F-8 Pirate instead, Midway and Coral Sea might suffer less at the end of their careers.

This also applies to the very last Essex (Lexington ? Oriskany ?). If Reagan wants to bring back a couple of them for its 600 ship navy, they have an interceptor lighter and smaller in size than OTL Hornet...

 

[isayyo2]

Ahhh and if the A-10 gets cancelled there’s about 700 A-8B’s for the Air Force to order, keeping the line open well into the 80s...

How are you envisioning the Sparrow carriage? Snugged to fuselage like an AIM-9, or hung from the wing like a Shrike?

 

[Archibald]

Sidewinders, Crusader style; Sparrows, underwing.

 

[Lascaris]

Yees ! Absolutely. Except it needs some good name.

More on this TL. First, a refined POD. I checked the A-7A/B/C transition to TF41. Happened between 1965 and 1968, USAF A-7D first, quickly followed by the USN screwing its last A-7B into A-7E with the new engine. They all flew in 1968-69. Fine.

The USN then badly wants afterburning TF41 for either F-111B or the coming Tomcat (which started as early as 1966). Problem: McNamara and the Air Force whine "F-111 is already in trouble, we can't change the TF30 now".

The USN, baffled, decides to screw them. Instead of modifying a F-111B with TF41 as a supersonic testbed, they ask Vought to modify an A-7E.
It quietly flies circa 1968. So the YA-7F is born, a demonstrator... and it breaks the bank. And there, here we go again, A-7D / A-7E, but in reverse. The USN A-7F impress the Air Force so much, they request a land-based variant: logically called the A-7G (the irony). Vought is extremely happy, you guess. And they immediately plans their next move.

Since the last Crusaders rolled out in 1965 (the French Navy batch of 42) they immediately think about an A-7F fighter variant - a reborn Crusader !

In the meantime, they need better names for these two. The new, supersonic A-7 was once called A-7F and A-7G "Corsair III". But Vought after some lobying gets the A-8 slot. Which mirrors the Crusader F-8, so perfect.

Hence... A-8A and A-8B Corsair III.

But how about the fighter variant ? F-8 won't move, but Crusader IV ? sounds boring.

Vought test pilot John Konrad tells what happened next...

Vought lost no time putting dummy air-to-air-missiles on a Corsair III. And then come Admiral Stansfield Turner who saw our aircraft.

"Are those missiles Sparrows ?"
"Yes, Admiral Turner."
"So tell me, you are looking for a fighter variant, correct ?"
"You guessed well"
"And do you even have a decent name for it ?"
"Only Corsair III. Or Crusader IV."
"Sounds bad. You will need to find a better name."
"We will, Turner."
"Well, let me help you. How about Pirate ? That was the name of Vought first jet, the F6U"
"Brilliant ! Let's go for a Pirate with Sparrows"
"And Sidewinders, obviously."
"As you will, Turner. Pardon, Admiral"
"No problem. You did so much for the Navy, John. Let's have some rum to celebrate this."
"Common admiral, you know we can't. "
"Ah yes, damn it. Why is the rum gone, from our ships ?"

How do the original VFAX concepts like free MDD Model 263 fit here?

 

[DanielStarseer]

....bit late to join the conversation, but wouldn't this theoretical A-7X Corsair III with a 25,000-lbs-thrust class engine,
almost just be re-inventing the higher-end proposals of the F-8 Crusader?

 

[Archibald]

Agreed, but the Crusader died in 1965 when the last rolled out of Vought Dallas production line, for the French Navy... V-1000 could have been dynamite, but F-5E decided otherwise. Then the V-1100 ran into the F-16.
The A-7F way with afterburning TF41 is the only way to keep Vought supersonic - outside fighters.

 

[isayyo2]

....bit late to join the conversation, but wouldn't this theoretical A-7X Corsair III with a 25,000-lbs-thrust class engine,
almost just be re-inventing the higher-end proposals of the F-8 Crusader?

Yep! A single seat, multi-role plane that's more A then F; A/F-7 rather than F/A-18. Like what @Archibald mentioned above, it's basically a backdoor plot to order more F-14s and to keep them in service much longer.

 

[Cjc]

Why would AH-56 living kill the a-10? It survived with the apache after all.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Why would AH-56 living kill the a-10? It survived with the apache after all.

"There is a fair amount of evidence to indicate that the USAF did not plan to use the A-10 for any other purpose than to kill the Army’s Cheyenne program--to keep the Army out of the CAS mission."

If the USAF failed to kill the Cheyenne, they may have lost interest in the AX program.

The USAF didn't really want to purchase a dedicated asset for the close air support role, but they didn't like the AH-56 - it was treading too close to fixed-wing capability and represented the Army muscling in to their space. They'd prefer A-7s, or F-5s (much more fun for buzzing around in).

The AH-64 stayed more closely in Army niche roles.

Of course, this assumes that the AH-56 technical issues were solvable.

 

[isayyo2]

Why would AH-56 living kill the a-10? It survived with the apache after all.

The Apache entered service over a decade after the A-10? The Cheyenne overlaps with the A-10 to a much greater degree with range and speed, unlike the Apache.

An AH-56 entering service by 1970 would jeopardize the A-X Program before the second RFP could be released. If you read the first post and its linked PDF report it spells out plainly the Air Force used the A-X Program to kill the Cheyenne and other “fast” Army helicopters.

If you disagree, I would love to read a dissenting opinion!

 

[Cjc]

Why would AH-56 living kill the a-10? It survived with the apache after all.

The Apache entered service over a decade after the A-10? The Cheyenne overlaps with the A-10 to a much greater degree with range and speed, unlike the Apache.

An AH-56 entering service by 1970 would jeopardize the A-X Program before the second RFP could be released. If you read the first post and its linked PDF report it spells out plainly the Air Force used the A-X Program to kill the Cheyenne and other “fast” Army helicopters.

If you disagree, I would love to read a dissenting opinion!

While I agree the a-x program was started as a attempt to kill the ah-56 as subiquite efforts have shown it proved to have a lot momentum behind it, as seen by the fact the usaf keept the program going after the ah-56 was canceled. After all why would the program continue after that point if it hadn't gained a following of its own. That following was the fighter mafia ironically enough (after all specialized aircraft was there thing) and it proved very popular in congress.

Both of those show me at lest that whatever the program started out as, it had gained enough momentum to survive.

 

[yasotay]

There is a great book(let) study from RAND on the inter-service rivalry between the USA and USAF during the Vietnam Conflict. There are also several DTIC reports on the aerodynamic inadequacies of the AH-56 at that point. Vietnam drawdown and decreasing budgets were putting pressure on the USA to re-equip for the NATO and Europe. So it was not hard for USAF Inc. to push the USA to a decision to kill the program. Frankly even if AH-56A had been completely aerodynamically sound and functioning I am not sure it would have survived as it would have consumed a significant portion of the Army's budget during a philosophical change (jungle gorilla warfare to open plains armored warfare) by the ground force of the United States.
The USAF Inc. has a very good record of defeating USA efforts for platforms that had any potential to encroach into their sphere (a.k.a. money).
As to A-X being nothing more than a ploy, hard to say, but the focus on major combat in Europe with thousands of tanks and APC roaming around put the USAF Inc. in a trick with civilian leadership that wanted to know how, less atomics, the USAF was going to bring its might to bear on the problem. I am mostly remembering from very old discussion with old officers that the government said the USAF would need something like four times the number of A-X that they wanted to buy. This was derived from data from the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Clearly this was not on for USAF Inc. who needed more fighters and fighter bombers. This was why the USAF Inc. did not fight the USA effort for an Advanced Anti-tank helicopter.
Had A-X died, regardless of AH-56, I think an aircraft with an ability to carry a large bomb load while also having a modicum of air to air, even if just in name, would have certainly been the order of the day.

 

[Archibald]

I am mostly remembering from very old discussion with old officers that the government said the USAF would need something like four times the number of A-X that they wanted to buy.

They bought 700 of them, does this mean they would have needed 2800 ??!!! This is more than even the added production run of Su-25 + A-10 (1000 + 700). And close (the irony !) from the planned F-35 orders.

 

[uk 75]

The A10s in Europe were all based in UK with forward operating bases in West Germany.
Air National Guard A7s were earmarked to come across the Atlantic and operate from the UK too. They had a role similar to the A10s which would have been chewed up in the early fighting.
Only the West Germans had a dedicated tank killer too. It used the diminutive Alpha Jet with bombs and rocket pods.
The A10s worked closely in W Germany with US Army AH1s and later AH64s to cope with Soviet anti aircraft vehicles as well as armour.
A10 had the awesome 30mm vulcan gun with depleted uranium ammo and maverick asm. A7s from the ANG like the Alpha Jets just had bombs.

 

[Archibald]

The A10s in Europe were all based in UK with forward operating bases in West Germany.
Air National Guard A7s were earmarked to come across the Atlantic and operate from the UK too. They had a role similar to the A10s which would have been chewed up in the early fighting.
Only the West Germans had a dedicated tank killer too. It used the diminutive Alpha Jet with bombs and rocket pods.
The A10s worked closely in W Germany with US Army AH1s and later AH64s to cope with Soviet anti aircraft vehicles as well as armour.
A10 had the awesome 30mm vulcan gun with depleted uranium ammo and maverick asm. A7s from the ANG like the Alpha Jets just had bombs.

Imagine a matured AH-56, A-10B, and A-7F side-by-side...

 

[Cjc]

I am mostly remembering from very old discussion with old officers that the government said the USAF would need something like four times the number of A-X that they wanted to buy.

They bought 700 of them, does this mean they would have needed 2800 ??!!! This is more than even the added production run of Su-25 + A-10 (1000 + 700). And close (the irony !) from the planned F-35 orders.

I mean according to that history Channel doc (lol) the plan was originally 3300 ah-56, plus it also showed off that scout version (with the front chin replaced with a sensor ball, that could data link with other chyannes?) That could have easily taken over the lhx competition in the 80's and added another 2,000.

It should also be noted that the orgonal plan was for 750 a-10's the usaf cut the order sometime in the early 80's, so we would be talking about 3,000 actually.

 

[uk 75]

Matured AH56?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-cl-1700-aah-contender.15412/post-18370

 

[uk 75]

A10B in service? Ukrainian Flying Tigers A10B?

 

[uk 75]

and A7s in action on a special military visit to some bloke who said he didnt need a ride